Martha McSally on Civil Rights

I know first-hand the discrimination women face

As the first woman in U.S. history to fly a fighter aircraft in combat and command a fighter squadron, I know first-hand the challenges, biases, harassment, and discrimination women in our country face. I managed to break through these glass ceilings
along with many other trail-blazing women who figured out how to succeed in a very male-dominated environment. Now, I want to continue fighting for women's rights in Congress.

I fought for eight years to overturn a Pentagon policy requiring U.S. servicewomen to wear Muslim garb when off base in Saudi Arabia. After more than six years, I was ordered to follow these demeaning and discriminatory policies and threatened to be
court-martialed if I did not comply. I complied for 13 months while continuing to advocate for a policy change, then put my career on the line and filed McSally vs Rumsfeld in court. I then shepherded legislation to overturn the policy once and for all.

Faith2Action.org is "the nation's largest network of pro-family groups." They provide election resources for each state, including Voter Guides and Congressional Scorecards excerpted here.
The F2A survey summarizes candidate stances on the following topic: 'Marriage: Do you support same-sex marriage?'

Don't elevate gender identity as a protected class.

McSally voted YEA H.Amdt. 1128 to H.R. 5055

Heritage Action Summary: The Maloney Amendment would ratify President Obama's 2014 executive order barring federal contractors from what it describes as "discrimination" on the basis of "sexual orientation and gender identity" in their private employment policies. In practice, it would have required federal contractors to grant biologically male employees who identify as women unfettered access to women's lockers, showers, and bathrooms.

Heritage Foundation recommendation to vote NO: (5/25/2016): Congress should not be elevating sexual orientation and gender identity as a protected class garnering special legal privileges, which is the intent of the Maloney Amendment. The Maloney Amendment constitutes bad policy that unnecessarily regulates businesses. It risks undoing longstanding protections in civil rights law and makes clear that the president's orders are not exempt from them.

ACLU recommendation to vote YES: (5/11/2016):
We see today claims to a right to discriminate--by refusing to provide services to LGBT people--based on religious objections. Claiming a right to discriminate in the name of religion is not new. In the 1960s, we saw objections to laws requiring integration in restaurants because of sincerely held beliefs that God wanted the races to be separate. We saw religiously affiliated universities refuse to admit students who engaged in interracial dating. In those cases, we recognized that requiring integration was not about violating religious liberty; it was about ensuring fairness. It's no different today.

Religious freedom in America means that we all have a right to our religious beliefs, but this does not give us the right to use our religion to impose those beliefs on others.